States competent providing In-service Reservation in NEET SS: SC

Such observations were expressed by the top court bench while denying continuing the interim protection granted in this regard for the academic year 2020-2021.

Referring to the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (supra), the bench noted, "The Constitution Bench in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (supra) has held that insofar as admission to postgraduate courses are concerned, it is within the competence of the State Legislature to do so."

"As such, we find that the facts in the present case are much nearer to the facts that fell for consideration in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (supra). We are also of the prima facie view that the facts that fell for consideration in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) were distinct from the facts that fall for consideration in the present case. We are, therefore, of the considered view that taking into consideration the principles of judicial discipline and judicial propriety, we should be guided by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (supra) rather than the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra)," the bench observed.

With this, the States including Tamil Nadu would now be allowed to provide special reservation for its service doctors in admission to Super-Specialty Courses.

However, the bench has also clarified in its order that this view has been made prima facie.

"We further clarify that the present order is being passed only on prima facie considerations," the bench clearly mentioned as it denied continuing the interim protection granted against in-service reservation for the academic year 2020-2021.

Medical Dialogues has been reporting about the matter of whether 50 per cent reservation to government doctors and in-service candidates in PostGraduate medical (PG medical) and super-speciality courses should be allowed.

The issue emerged after the state of Tamil Nadu, on November 7, 2020 had allocated 50 per cent of postgraduate super-specialty seats in government medical colleges to in-service government doctors from the academic year 2020-2021.

While the Supreme Court in its interim order had put a stay on this policy last year, recently the Madras High Court bench has upheld the State's decision. Consequently, the matter came to be challenged before the Supreme Court once again and the petitioners sought an extension of the interim protection granted by the top court last year.

Recently, during the hearing of the case, the petitioners had contended that the Tamil Nadu G.O was unconstitutional as the Supreme Court constitutional bench had earlier held that there would be no reservation of seats for super specialty DM/M.Ch. courses.

The Union Government also sought a continuation of the stay and pointed out that since NEET-SS 2017, there has been no reservation in Super-specialty and the centre had further pointed out that if the State restricts entry in any manner it would be detrimental to national interest.

On the other hand, the Tamil Nadu Government and the in-service doctors supported the reservation by pointing out that most of the non-service candidates in the last four years have not even complied with the bond conditions and those who have, 92% of such doctors go away after two years. In such a situation, it becomes difficult for the state to sustain its institution, the state had claimed.

Taking note of the fact that the petitioners, who opposed the reservation, had relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra), the bench noted that "In the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra), the question that fell for consideration before the Constitution Bench was, as to whether any type of relaxation would be permissible at the Super Specialty level … This Court, therefore, found that lowering the qualifying criteria for reserved category candidates, thereby resulting in great disparity of qualifying marks between a general category candidate on one hand and a reserved category candidate on the other hand, was not permissible."

"Though, it is sought to be urged on behalf of the writ petitioners/appellants that the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (supra) deals only with the postgraduate degree/diploma medical courses and cannot be made applicable to Super Specialty courses, and that the present cases would be governed by the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra); we find it, at least prima facie, difficult to accept the said proposition made on behalf of the writ petitioners/appellants," further noted the bench in this context.

"At the cost of repetition, we may state that the issue involved in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) was, as to whether a relaxation can be provided insofar as minimum qualifying marks are concerned to the reserved category candidates, resulting in a huge disparity of qualifying marks for the reserved category candidates as against the general category candidates. The question, as to whether a reservation or a separate channel for admission can be provided to the in service candidates did not fall for consideration in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra)," clarified the judgment.

Holding that the facts in the concerned matter of in-service reservation was much nearer to the facts of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (supra), the bench opined that "we should be guided by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (supra) rather than the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra)."

Denying to extend the interim protection for this academic year, the bench noted, "Needless to say that the State of Tamil Nadu would be at liberty to continue the counselling for academic year 2021 2022 by taking into consideration the reservation provided by it as per the said G.O."

The matter has been listed for further hearing after vacations.

To read the top court order, click on the link below.